STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR versus SH. PRABHU DAYAL GROVER

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 785 · Decided: 19-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-( 
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR 
A 
v. 
SH. PRABHU DAYAL GROVER 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Officers' Service 
Reguiations 1979--Regulation 68(2)(iiirDepartmental proceedings-A fair 
adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to person 
ll!Taigned-Substantial compliance and not Jonna! compliance-Whether C 
amounts to breach of Regulation 68 (2)(iii)-Held, No-Departmental 
proceedings not to be faulted. 
Regulation 68(3 )-Departmental proceedings-Procedure-When Dis-
ciplinary Authority agrees with findings of Enquiry Officer-No obligation to 
record reasons-Punishing authority not to re- appraise evidence to anive at D 
same findings. 
Regulation 70(2rAppeal No obligation on Appellate Authority to give 
any reasons for its order. 
·While working as Manager of the appellant Bank, respondent was E 
proceeded against departmentally for accepting bribe and was removed 
from service. Appeal filed by him before the Executive Committee of the 
Bank was dismissed. He instituted a civil suit for a declaration that the 
orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority 
were illegal and void and for consequential reliefs. The Trial Court decreed F 
the suit holding that the provisions of Regulation 68(2) (iii) of the State 
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Officers' Service Regulations 1979, which 
governed the departmental enquiry had been violated in as much as no 
definite and distinct charges had been framed against the plaintiff and he 
had been punished on the basis of a show cause notice as even statement G 
of allegations had not been furnished to him; that a copy of the enquiry 
report was also not made available to the delinquent before the order of 
removal was passed; that the Disciplinary Authority had not applied its 
mind, before passing the order of punishment and it merely agreed with 
the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that the Appellate Authority had 
also dismissed the Departmental Appeal without giving any reason. The H 
785 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
appeal filed by the Bank against the judgment and decree of the Trial 
Court was dismissed. The appellate Court, however, granted liberty to the 
Bank to institute a fresh departmental enquiry. Second appeal filed by the 
Bank was dismissed in linine. The respondent also filed a second appeal 
assailing the liberty granted to the Bank which was also dismissed. Hence 
B 
these appeals. 
The appellant Bank contended that the finding of the Trial Court 
that the order of removal was bad as the report of the Enquiry Officer was 
not furnished to the delinquent before it was made, was liable to be set 
aside in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Managi,ng 
C Director EC/Iv. B. Karunakar, [1993) 4 SCC 724 wherein it had been held 
that orders of punishment passed prior to 30-11-1990 should not be 
disturbed for non-furnishing of the enquiry report and the disciplinary 
proceedings which gave rise to such orders should not be reopened on that 
account; that the enquiry was not and could not have been held under the 
Regulations of 1979 as they came into effect after the proceeding against 
D the respondent was initiated ; that the failure lo furnish a statement of 
allegations in support of the charge would not make the enquiry and the 
order of punishment bad, for along with the charge sheet a copy of the 
complaint received and lists of witnesses and statements and documents 
by which charges were proposed to be sustained were furnished to the 
E 
delinquent; that at no stage of the departmental proceedings the delin-
quent asked for the statement of allegation nor did he raise any grievance 
on that score before the Appellate Authority; and that when the diseipli-
nary authority agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer it was not 
necessary to discus the evidence and give reasons for the findings. 
F 
The respondent submitted that the requirement of Regulation 
68(2) (iii) was not complied with and the orders of the Disciplinary 
Authority and the Appellate Authority could not be legally sustained as 
neither of them had given any reasons for their respective decisions. 
G 
Allowing the appeal of the Bank, this Court 
HELD : Regulation 68(2) (iii) of the State Bank of Bikaner and 
.-
Jaipur Officers' Service Regulations seeks to fulfil one of the basic postu· 
lates of the rules of n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.